Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1887-02-23

IL Any Protection Admissible?
10 the Edifor o) TIC Dispatch:
In my answer 20 your inquiry AIS q protective
duty Of 10 per cent admissiblef" think
rpAde IL 50 clear that II even per cent IL I'D
missibie then 100 or 800 per cent Is eluaIiy
admissible that no more need re saio; merely
But you say a tariff for projection Ia enacted
by Congress, and that therefore IL does not
take our property without our consent Herein
lies the most vicious OF all the fallacies OF pro
fection--that Is 10 say. because protection IL
leoaL therefore II Is admissible. A law Is legal
simply because IL Is enacted by tho properly
constituted authorities; but law may DO legsl
and at the same time DO thoroughly unconstl.
futionai tnd thoroughly dishonest Leg6i
eimply means according 20 Law, and a law, now.
ever fepuRnant 70 constitutions, remains legal
until successfully asssiled.
Thus IL il legal TO deprive citzen OF tne
right Of counsel in coupon matters, Out what
cool. cIear-headed man will assert that such
Law Is either Just or CONSTITUTIONAL SO with
regard 10 tariff for rejection. IL islegal aud
II has remained legal, either because no man
has been bold enough 20 test the question In
The Supreme Court, or II one has been, the
court has not been honest and brave enough 70
upset the Law. The only warrant for any oil
our national laws Is our Federal Constitution,
and where Is the man rash enough 70 assert
that there IL any warrant In that great charter
for protection! Even Mr. Randall, In every
respect a most peTnicious politician, ana In
many other respects one OF our nrinest ana
wisest s'afssD,en, admits that protection Is un-
constitutional; that thus 1t is absolutely WIN
out warrant In that instrument Protection IS
ultra piYes, and Il therefore as admissible as IL
would be for the State OF Virginia % levy aspe-
ciai tax on tho Alexandria Gazette or the Inls1-
AptedI because they oppose forciblo settle
ment OF the State debt or for any other sroi-
trary reason.
: Again. there Is a wide gulf-ss wide as that
separating Dives and Lazarus after they pa
adleu, a earthly afaiTs--sopar.nng taxation
for rosfble and taxation for protection
All taxes are In q measure against the con-
cent Of come, for there arc thousands VINO
never poluRtarily pay taxes for any purposes
however urgent But taxaton Tor revenue Is
right inherent in all governments, Tor withou.
money they cannot exist, and the Government
has a right TO lay it's grasp upon any subject OF
taxation that in its ODiiliOn Is right III may ex-
erise the right unwisely, but no man can say
nav TO its decision. Thus the government LOT
s,,trDOses Of Terenue--and IL may dssnme IL Is
Tor revenue, Just as our State assumed there
were counterfeit coupons when IL knew there
wero none-has right TO lay It's hand on 10
bacco and wbiskey, and all the Defamation,
even though Il come from college professors
md sage editors. that We hear on the subject
OF the iaiquity of the tax is, begging their par
don, simply puerile. To tax tobacco and Wills
KEY specially may be unwise, Dut III can
never be- fniquitous as long as Congress, the
legally Contributed body, thinks 1t necessary.
Even an income tax, thoroughly undemOcratic
as II IA, inasmuch as 1t burdens few and
relieves the many, has been sustained wheh
Congress thought II necessary Tor revenue.
But when we come to revenue for protection
then a duty Of l per cent turns us oil a1rlit
with no guide or compass except tne snhins
and dishonest guide OF individual interest
When tits left 20 an Organized minority 70 say
what tho majority shall contribute 20 the emol-
ument OF the few we shall have just such
tariff as We now have. ranging from nothlng,
when II Is to The interest OF powerful MAJ s i
turers 10 have their raw material come IN Tree,
10 from 20 10 upwards OF 100 per cent on
blankets and other necessary articles OF
clothing. The wolves guarding the sheep Is a
well-worn simiie. but never has II been 40 Wei
applied AZ In The case OF a tarln Tor protectlon.
When every man is for himself, aud this must
necessarily be the cGse in tarin for pro
lection, for the most grasplng pro.ectIOhlst
will acknowledge that he 10 seeking nis
own good first and foremost, considering me
good OF the country only as "lncidehAi' the
devil u sure to catch the hindmost, and the
hindmost are the immense majority OF the
people who have their property taken wlthou'
their consent
story OF the Presbyterian and tie Methodist
They were talking about their faiths. but wnen
The Methodist found that the former believed
a gfent many more and great many more
dreadful things than he did, ne rainer Wllte1
and added in an apologize tone, The TACT IS
brother we believe In the doctrine OF total de
prayity, too; hut the difficulty Is 10 get oui
members 60 live up 10 IT." Inc Democretl'
party has the same diniculty-it cant Gol Mr
RanGall aud his cO:eries 10 live up 10 itS prln'
ciploA .,-. s.-.,
schools and Mr. Wattersons opinion. Would
De glad Of the opportunity to do so. l.. ii. Is.
The first paragraph calls for no com
ment. In the second, l.. H. b. tries tt
change the issue. Here is what we OBJ
iected to last Sunday. He had said:
Stealing is only taking from us ou1
property without our consent, and pro
lection is only taking our property
without our consent. There is no diff
fert nee between the two as far as in
Jury TO the losers is concerned"
We have never said that because pro
lection is legalit isadmissible, but mere
~ that if it was done by law 1t wa
done with our consent, and was not Il
DE hkened to larceny. l.. H. b. SHOULD
maintain his original contention. Al
that he says about law We might &C
knowledge TO he true, and still yield M
point. BLACKSTONE drew hundred
years ago the distinction between of
fences that were mdia in SC and thos'
that were only mata pr0hibita.
Is protection admissible? When w
recollect that the Federal tax on wits
key amounts in all to about 80 cents {
gallon, we can understand that if tina
tax were allowed to remain and the ia
riff upon whiskey were to be abolished
every distillery in the United State
would go down. So il the tax of
cents per pound upon manufacture
tobacco were continued and the tart
upon that article allowed to remain
every tobacco-factory in the Unite
States would 20 down. There are THU
iy-four in this city, selling seve
or eight millions Of dollars wort
OF tobacco annually, not one {
which could exist il there were no tart
upon manufactured tobacco. Again
IL the United States we're to abolish tn
customs duties upon whiskey and mar
ufactures of tobacco and allow these al
ticles to come in free, the Governmer
would derive not one cent of reyenu
from those articles, and would cons,
quently have to raise one hundred mi
lions Of dollars by taxation in som
other form. So We may assume, W
think, that everybody viii admit thi
there should be ahigh tariff or counte
Willing duties upon whiskey and MAJ
nfactured tobacco 80 long as there is a
jnternsl-revenue tax upon them. Pr
lection Is. therefore, admissible undo
these circumstances.
But il protection is admissible undo
these circumstances. IL is also admiss
DIE IL there is anything in our cond
Zion in this country which renders
impossible for us to compete wit
Foreign countries in the production
sIoD, steel, sumac, or any other article
Tor example, il the Tredegar work.
and the Belle Isle nail-works and stee
q ~ -.